It doesn't matter what's on TV. If it did, when you told people you collected comics they'd think you were a serial killer. "Oh, I've got boxes and boxes of comics back at my place, some of them are really old..."

You mean...like Milton Berle?

But I still maintain the only people saying “the media” all the time every day are the people on TV. And why should I prefer their usage, just because they won’t shut up about themselves?

Because, by virtue of it being on tv, more people hear that usage than any other? Mixed media art isn't exactly a common subject of discussion anywhere other than, say, an art class...

There's nothing about the Clark Kent character in Smallville that makes me think of a powerful, resourceful, compassionate person driven by an innate sense of goodness to use his abilities to help others. "Smallville Clark" seems a reluctant hero at best who spends his time rescuing the same group of people, either from "freaks of the week" or the season's Big Bad. That's not Superman — that's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" with DC Comics characters.

So far, aside from the usual cast of Superman characters including villains like Zod and Brainiac and variations on Bizarro and Mxyzptlk, we have seen Green Arrow (actually a star of the show now), Flash (more or less), Aquaman, Cyborg, Black Canary and Martian Manhunter (in human guise). They've just given us a variation of the character Plastique, had a fairly faithful appearance of Maxima, and hinted at more villains to come. I guess there's a completely different werewolf kind of take on Doomsday apparently on it's way, too. Plus minor characters like Maggie Sawyer, Morgan Edge. And finally, it's reported that some of the Legion of Super-Heroes will appear in a future episode.

Whether you like the show or not, that's a lotta comic book characters for one series.

But I still maintain the only people sating "the media" all the time every day are the people on TV. And why should I prefer their usage, just because they won't shut up about themselves?

As to mouses and sheeps...how do you figure "sheeps" is easier than "sheep", by the way? One sheep, two sheep, a bunch of sheep. One car, two car, a bunch of car. I mean if we're looking for ease of learning here...why not just get rid of plurals entirely?

Plus anyone who can’t tell “media meaning the news media” from “media meaning the plural of medium” from the context of the sentence in which it’s used, well…

As long as you understand that "the media" is (arbitrarily) singular, you're fine, unless you're dealing with phrases like "other media" which could certainly indicate alternate MASS media as well. (I wrote a science fiction story dealing with more-or-less this premise. Working around the two different uses of "media" was a bitch and a half. I eventually settled on "medias" for the different forms of mass media in different civilizations.)

And, remember a medium is a medium, just as much as newspapers. They're people that serve as a method of communication for spiritual entities. I don't see a need to linguistically separate one medium from another. Clear-cut discrimination against dead people, if you ask me.

I'm all for "mouses" and "sheeps" too. I don't need them to replace our current usage, but I think they should be accepted as equally correct.

Some of this is selfish: I *like* English as the international language, because it makes it easier for me.

(And there's plenty of arguments for this. No masculine/feminine, tense laws that with just a little bit of revising could be all kinds of sensible...)

But as it stands, with the amount of irregularities reflecting the tense rules of dead languages, it would make much, much, more sense for ALL of us to learn Esperanto instead of expecting non-native speakers to remember thousands upon thousands of tense and plural based irregularities.

And there's the art based argument. More linguistic options gives one's prose a greater scope for rhythm and rhyme.

In America, at least, when "media" is used it means mass-media 98% of the time. (Generally "the liberal media.") "Mixed media" and "media" as plural for "mediums" are generally limited to people with an interest in visual arts, or... Well, stuff like this post here, which is talking to a fairly specialized audience with a strong interest in a singular medium.

In any case, I'm sticking with the old usage no matter what.

This matter of use: two things. One, how the word "media" gets used by people who are "in the media" is I think probably not as important as how it gets used by people on the street -- who use it a lot less. You also never, ever hear newscasters on TV talk about mixed media in art, but in real life this is probably a use that competes for top spot. Who really sits around passing the time of day about "the media"? No one I know. Also if you go up to a mixed-media artist and tell them you like the way they mix their mediums, they'll probably correct you -- because it's their word too. I'm just saying.

Second thing: most people don't employ their full vocabulary in everyday speech or even private writing, and in casual environments they let grammar and diction slip. But, that doesn't mean they're ignorant of, or uncomfortable with, those distinctions. Why conclude that they are? If someone says "mediums" in everyday speech, it doesn't mean they don't shiver when they see "mediums" written in print to stand for "media". These are known words, they're common. There's nothing illogical or counterintuitive about them: people use them all the time, for reading comprehension if nothing else.

Oh, and I should just say...I don't think "mediums" has become accepted usage.

Ah, a nice language debate.

Unlike "media" (meaning mass media, as it's used 98% of the time in American English at least) and mediums. "Media" got co-opted to mean something else - Which paves the road for the much more sensible and intuitive "mediums."

They're just words. Why have fewer of them?

Also, I hate the fact that “mediums” has passed into acceptability.

I'm a big fan of English moving towards being more regular and less stupid.

In this case not only does "mediums" make more logical sense as the plural of "medium" it's also more difficult to misinterpret. Since, as a writer, I value clarity far more than dictionary correctness, I'll always use "mediums."

Mr. Curran needs a smack in the head.

Post something like that again and you won't be commenting here anymore.