If I send two messages to my brother electronically I know I’ve e-mailed him, but have I sent e-mails or e-mail.
I would think I sent him e-mail, but I see almost exclusively, the use of the word e-mails.
What think ye?
I think the distinction can be most easily demonstrated by looking to email’s slow cousin snailmail.
Prior to the internet people coresponded by sending letters in the mail. If you mailed your brother two letters, he would receive mail from you in about 2 days to a week (two weeks!) depending on where you live.
Mail is a collective noun, which is examined in greater detail in another thread, and as such is not pluralized, since it represents more than one already.
Zoom forward to the present. Rather than sending letters we prefer to send email, cheaper postage, via email. If you emailed your brother two emails, he would receive email from you in about 10 seconds to a day depending on his and your ISPs.
In this case, email can act as both a collective noun, representing a collection of emails, or as a regular (I know the linguists are "tutting", there must be a more technical term for this) noun representing a single electronic letter.
So to make a long story short you can say email or emails to represent the more than one email.
All the best,
Barnett
APPENDED COMMENT
Agoraphile beat me to the punch ... however, I didn’t see his/her reply until after I had posted mine ;)
Thats what I get for trying to reply to this message board while doing other things
[quote author=bmassey link=board=spell;num=1030565336;start=0#2 date=08/28/02 at 16:50:52]I think the distinction can be most easily demonstrated by looking to email’s slow cousin snailmail.
But If I asked you "How much mail did you receive today?"
[quote author=Dedalus link=board=spell;num=1030565336;start=0#3 date=08/29/02 at 12:43:59]
Maybe we shouldn’t use e-mails at all?
Ahh, but emails are different: They can be two-word messages, long spams, viruses, full-bodied letters, automatically-generated acknowledgements, short messages with long attachments, etc. ‘Emails’ seems to cover the lot of these dispatches.
Actually, around yDc we send "e-mail" rather than "email".
Our dictionary doesn’t list the un-hyphenated version and the OED lists it as colloquial, except when talking about pottery.
Used attrib. in email ink, ink used on glass, porcelain, etc.; email ombrant Pottery, a process in which the impressions of the design appear as shadows
That is "email ink", not to be confused with "e-mail link".
[quote author=Agoraphile link=board=spell;num=1030565336;start=0#4 date=08/29/02 at 12:59:55]
Ahh, but emails are different: They can be two-word messages, long spams, viruses, full-bodied letters, automatically-generated acknowledgements, short messages with long attachments, etc. ‘Emails’ seems to cover the lot of these dispatches.
I’m not quite sure I see how these attributes are unique. Snail-mail(s) can have the same properties. (Two word messages, junk mail, anthrax, full-bodied letters, automatically-generated acknowledgements, short messages attached to packages, etc.) The word "mail" seems to cover them just fine and it would seem that "e-mail" does too. I can however see some argument for the utility of a simple pluralization like "emails" which can treat the objects as distinct or quantized rather than fluid.
It may just be that since we do not use an equivalent term "mails" that it sounds awkward to me, at the same time however it must be remembered that "e-mail" is an abreviation and that by saying "e-mails" we violate the rules of one of it’s parts. I would suspect that’s not something to be easily accepted. (except by newbies, and such as may not be forced by training or habit to think of a word in terms of it’s parts)
It might be said that if the word "e-mails" has merit, then the word "mails" ought to be equally acceptable.
What think ye?
The thing is we use the word e-mail to refer not only the collection of electronic correspondence, but to the individual correspondence as well. E-mail refers to both the electronic mail we receive, as well as the electronic letters.
As such e-mail, when used as the collective noun, is never pluralized. However, by virtue of common usage, e-mail is also used as a quantified noun, and is pluralized, if there are more than one.
In truth, we should perhaps use e-mail to refer to the collection, and e-letter or e-correspondence, etc. to refer to the individual pieces of correspondence. This, however, is not the case. As such "e-mail" has grown beyond the constraints of "mail". We can say e-mails, but not mails, since we can say letters but not e-letters.
[quote author=bmassey link=board=spell;num=1030565336;start=0#7 date=08/30/02 at 00:15:13]... In truth, we should perhaps use e-mail to refer to the collection, and e-letter or e-correspondence, etc. to refer to the individual pieces of correspondence. This, however, is not the case. As such "e-mail" has grown beyond the constraints of "mail". We can say e-mails, but not mails, since we can say letters but not e-letters.
All the best,
Barnett
Why not just ask how many messages are in your inbox? How many EMail messages did you get today?
[quote author=Dwyvannion link=board=spell;num=1030565336;start=0#10 date=08/30/02 at 11:21:09]One could argue that "I just sent her an e-mail…" is a truncation of "I just sent her an e-mail message…" :P
Aye, Lassie! I merely meant it to be an alternative. I, too, use E-Mail as either a collective or a common noun, and even a verb. "How much E-Mail do you get each day?" "How much of your E-Mail is Spam?" "Send me an E-Mail to remind me about the meeting." "E-Mail me at home." "Let me check my mail/my messages." I guess I sometimes use E-Mails, but it just sounds a bit awkward to me.
E-Mail is so commonplace that it has become a word, but e-letter and e-correspondence sound too much like a marketing buzzword. I cringe when I see "e-This" and "eThat" and "eWahateversomeidiotadvertisingwriterdecidedtocreatetoshowhowtechnologicallyadvancehislameproductis." [Sorry ‘bout that, Outclassed! ;)]
[quote author=Dwyvannion link=board=spell;num=1030565336;start=0#10 date=08/30/02 at 11:21:09]One could argue that "I just sent her an e-mail…" is a truncation of "I just sent her an e-mail message…" :P
Like "I’ll give her a call" is a truncation of "I’ll give her a telephone call."
This whole discussion would not have been necessary if the expression for electronic communication had originated in British English! We would probably have coined "e-letter", "e-message" in which case the question of plurals would have been superfluous. "e-mail" would then simply have referred to the whole sorry mess, with "e-post" as another choice.
[quote author=DerekB link=board=spell;num=1030565336;start=0#13 date=08/31/02 at 09:26:30] "e-mail" would then simply have referred to the whole sorry mess, with "e-post" as another choice.
I’m a fan of the new term.
I try to avoid saying "send an e-post", rather I use the equivalent verb form of "e-post." I might say "I e-posted her five times with that information." (I’ve invented other hoops to jump through in order to avoid encounters with the dreaded plural.)
(Message finished and it’s time to hit the "Post" button.)
can have the same properties. (Two word messages, junk mail, anthrax, full-bodied letters, automatically-generated acknowledgements, short messages attached to packages, etc.) The word "mail" seems to cover them just fine and it would seem that "e-mail" does too. I can however see some argument for the utility of a simple pluralization like "emails" which can treat the objects as distinct or quantized rather than fluid.
I merely meant it to be an alternative. I, too, use E-Mail as either a collective or a common noun, and even a verb. "How much E-Mail do you get each day?" "How much of your E-Mail is Spam?" "Send me an E-Mail to remind me about the meeting." "E-Mail me at home." "Let me check my mail/my messages." I guess I sometimes use E-Mails, but it just sounds a bit awkward to me.