You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
trend?

Help? Thoughts?

Thanks.

eric@compellingconversations.com schrieb:
> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> trend?
> 
> Help? Thoughts?
> 
In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about 
collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is 
uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about 
particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is 
countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the 
Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out 
- see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

eric@compellingconversations.com schrieb:
> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> trend?
> 
> Help? Thoughts?
> 
In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about 
collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is 
uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about 
particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is 
countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the 
Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out 
- see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

eric@compellingconversations.com schrieb:
> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> trend?
> 
> Help? Thoughts?
> 
In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about 
collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is 
uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about 
particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is 
countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the 
Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out 
- see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

eric@compellingconversations.com schrieb:
> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> trend?
> 
> Help? Thoughts?
> 
In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about 
collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is 
uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about 
particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is 
countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the 
Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out 
- see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}

On May 31, 1:26 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@planet-
interkom.de> wrote:
> e...@compellingconversations.com schrieb:> You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> > U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> > noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> > it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
> > trend?
>
> > Help? Thoughts?
>
> In my opinion it depends on the meaning. If we are talking about
> collecting information etc. in general then I would say it is
> uncountable. In particular contexts where we are talking about
> particular acts of collecting information then I would say it is
> countable. I don't think this is a US/GB thing and the entry at the
> Merriam Webster Online dictionary (US English) would seem to bear me out
> - see <http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>.

Thanks. I've seen different answers in different dictionaries.

In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
"eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:

}You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
}U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
}noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
}it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some other
}trend?

Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD, and
researches was not a word we used, ever.

Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage didn't exist we said
"we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".

Because our "high tech systems" are not nearly as good as the Brits and
Yanks, particularly, would have you believe. 

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.culture.language.english on 30 May 2007 23:19:13 -0700,
> "eric@compellingconversations.com"  wrote:
>
> }You will often hear that the word "research" is uncountable in the
> }U.S., but it seems that I find the word "researches" as a countable
> }noun too. Is this an American vs British English difference? Or does
> }it vary according to academic discipline? Or does this show some
> other }trend?
>
> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
>
> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".


You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or 
possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
-- 
John Briggs

In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
 John Briggs  writes:
>You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun (or
>possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I
>was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally
>incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.
-- 
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <_Cf8i.6455$VS.1522@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> John Briggs  writes:
>> You probably, however, came across the verb "to task", and the noun
>> (or possibly adjective) "hittile" (spellcheckers were in their
>> infancy, and I was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The
>> MOD is institutionally incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".
>
> I was about to mention "hittile" myself - a horrid coinage.

" Barbarous" (a cognate of "horrid"?) was the word you were looking for :-)
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:01:14 GMT, "John
Briggs"  wrote:

}{R} wrote:
}> Not sure about the degradation and mutilation of English by illiterate
}> Americans. I used to be (1970-80) a research scientist for the MOD,
}> and researches was not a word we used, ever.
}>
}> Neither was "attrite" a verb and "collateral damage" didn't exist we
}> said "we kill the poor bastards, unintentionally".
}
}
}You probably, however, came across the verb "to task",

Yes, I suppose that was marginally acceptable.

} and the noun (or possibly adjective) "hittile" 

At which we all laughed and completely ignored.

>(spellcheckers were in their infancy, and I 
}was always tempted to substitute "Hittite"...)  The MOD is institutionally 
}incapable of correctly spelling "supersede".

Oh yes, confused me for years that did.

The MOD took my PhD thesis away by classifying the data Secret :( So I
eventually just quit.

{R}