Language desk
< April 13	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 14

Radio/Radios and ENGVAR

Is the change of "radio" to "radios" in this edit correct in Australian English? To my American ears, it sounds strange. Dismas|^(talk) 00:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely strange. The song was sent to individual radios via the medium called radio. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not right in BrE, either - "radio stations" would be the normal UK term. I'm sure Jack will be along soon with a definitive answer. Tevildo (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was sent to US rhythmic contemporary radio/s by RCA Records ....

I'm not even sure what that means, knowing little - as little as I can get away with - about pop culture. Does it mean the music was made available to certain types of radio stations or broadcasters? If not that, what's it trying to say? To me, "radio" is the general scientific concept, or the industry, or it can refer to a particular receiving/listening device. But music makers can't send music direct to individual radio receivers, can they? They have to go via a radio station, don't they? But nobody refers to a radio station as just "a radio", do they? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, in that case, you'd use the noncountable/conceptual meaning of "radio". That word doesn't take a plural. When discussing radio merely as a broadcast medium, you can't pluralize it. The ONLY meaning of radio that takes a plural would be the physical object. The sentence above does not use it in that sense. I am by no means an expert on Australian English, but AFAIK, no variety of English pluralizes non-countable words like that. --Jayron 32 12:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. What exactly is happening? Sending something to "a radio" or to "radios" doesn't make sense to me, no matter which meaning of "radio" applies. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S. this device is called "A radio". But it would be awkward to refer to the medium of radio broadcasts as "radios". --Jayron 32 12:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the same down here. I, too, have never heard the medium of radio broadcasts referred to as "radios". However, the context of the OP's question is about something being sent to radio, which some editor has changed to sent to radios. I would contend that neither form of words represents anything that any human has ever said, which is why I suggested below it be rewritten so that it's both unambiguous and idiomatic. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. --Jayron 32 12:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In American English, I would read the sentence as "It was sent to US rhythmic contemporary radio [stations] by RCA Records..." Dismas|^(talk) 12:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster.com's entry "radio" features radio station as a possible meaning too ("a radio transmitting station"), as well as "a radio broadcasting organization". ---Sluzzelin talk 13:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, in that case, if it was being sent to a certain sub-set of "radio", where "radio" is the corporate radio broadcasting community, that would still be an uncountable noun, in any variety of English. As for the idiom, I can imagine "You can hear that sort of thing on jazz radio", or "Only community radio would have a segment like that". But the idiom "sending X to [Y] radio" is still foreign to me, and I suspect to most people. Maybe a rewrite is in order? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]