I made a reading list of all the books I think I should read before I die. The list is so long, it’s a book unto itself. But I didn’t think to include my reading list on my reading list. So I haven’t actually read my reading list, and I have no idea what’s listed there!
In other news, I made a list of all my reading lists. Since I have only one reading list, my list of reading lists is only one item long.
In a separate experiment, I made a list of all possible lists. Upon closer examination of some of those listed lists, I found that some of the lists include themselves on themselves, and some don’t. So I divided my master list-of-lists into two sub-lists:
[ol][li]The list of all lists that contain themselves on themselves, and[/li][li]the list of all lists that don’t contain themselves on themselves.[/ol][/li]Then I got to wondering: Does my list #2 list itself on itself? I began thinking about this, when suddenly the sky fell on my head.
A list does not ahve to have any items. Think of a list as being a container. Items enter the list, items leave the list. Sometimes the list is full. Sometimes the list is empty.
For example, where I am we have a running trial list on which all matters ready for trial are listed. Some months the list has many matters on it. Occasionally there are no matters on it, but the list itself still remains.
Although I’m sure many people have a blank pad of paper, whiteboard, something on the kitchen wall labeled or called “shopping list.” So even when blank it would still be correct to say, “Put kitty litter on the shopping list.”
If you’re organizing some sort of event and hang out a volunteer list where people can write down their names if they want to help, but nobody writes down their name—then what was it you hung out?
This is an odd question to me. A list can have any number of items, whether you’re using “list” colloquially or as a programmer. A shopping or to-do list isn’t any less of a list because it just has one item on it. Who came up with such nosense? The only thing I could think of is that in writing, when breaking down a bullet-pointed or numbered list, it’s preferable for it to have three or more items. Otherwise, just mention the items inline and don’t break them out. But I could see doing that for emphasis, so it’s just an arbitrary stylistic guideline.
Some people use stationery that identifies what is supposed to be written on the sheet/page. A page that has “Shopping List” or “Groceries” or “todo” printed (or written) on it is a list, unless it gets co-opted for doodling or some other notes. A page marked “Events” is still an event calendar even if nothing is happening – unless it gets co-opted …
Follow-up grammar/usage question: When a series of two things is listed, I refer to them as the former and the latter. When it is more than two things, I say first, last, or the ordinal number for the thing’s position. But I have been seeing writing referring to the last in a series of more than two things as the latter. I think this is incorrect. Is it?
Maybe in a three-item list, the middle one should be called the latter, while the third one should be called the lattest. If there are five items on the list, then #3 should be called the middest.
As Thudlow Boinket al have mentioned, a LISP list and other kinds of lists can have zero items. Here’s an experiment (that would otherwise belong in ATMB): Can a SDMB list have only zero or one item on it? Let’s try it:
Here is a list of zero items:
[ul]
[/ul]
What do you see above? The actual code I typed in is:
Here is a list of zero items:
[noparse][ul][/noparse]
[noparse][/ul][/noparse]
Now here is a list of one item:
[ul]
[li] Hi, Opal.[/li][/ul]
What do you see above? The actual code I typed is:
Now here is a list of one item:
[noparse][ul][/noparse]
[noparse][li] Hi, Opal.[/noparse][/li][noparse][/ul][/noparse]
Among programmers, a list can not only have two items, but it could have only one or even zero. There’s also a difference between an empty list and a null list. An empty list exists, but there is nothing on it. A null list doesn’t actually exist - attempting to access it can trigger an error message or crash your computer.
Since the OP is new and nobody else has explained it, the references to “Opal” are to a long-ago member of this board, yclept Opalcat, who once loudly complained that a list could not have only two items. This spawned a board tradition where, if a person were making a list which would otherwise contain only two items, they would add “3: Hi, Opal” as the third item of the list. This isn’t done much any more, but the old-timers still remember.
The only context in which this makes sense is a grammatical one. Obviously real life lists can have any number of members. But it is generally stylistically frowned upon to use a list that has only is only one member. Two members can go either way, but so can three.
For an example of the first, it would be odd for me to say the following:
[quote]
The following is a list of what I need you to do around the house:
[ul][li]Take out the trash[/ul][/li][/quote]
For examples of the second, I will use first a bad example, then a good one. These, of course, are subjective.
[quote]
The following is a list of what I need you to do around the house:
[ul][li]Take out the trash[/li][li]mop the floor[/ul][/li][/quote]
[quote]
The following is a list of what I need you do around the house:
[list][li]Take out the trash. It is getting rather smelly and it’s getting hard to keep the dogs from wanting to get into it.[/li][li]Mope the floor. The dogs have tracked dirt all over it, and we’re expecting the fridge repairman soon.[/li][/quote]
I’m wondering if people might be getting confused with an old “rule” about outlines that I learned in English class when I was in high school, where every subcategory had to have at least tow elements because otherwise, you weren’t dividing anything up and there was no real need to mention it.
I. Rain
A. Before June
B. After June
II. Snow
A. In Winter
This isn’t your run-of-the-mill list, since it has a hierarchy, and it’s in a “final” form, that is, nothing is going to be added to it later.
Ah, I think your post clearly resolves the semantic question: almost every list will have zero, one or two items at some point in its existence. Lists do not materialize out of nowhere fully formed, they have to be composed in some way or another. So, clearly, unless you want to call a list in composition not-a-list, a list with less than three items must needs exist before a list with three or more items can.
First there was Ferencz, then there was the Countess with him, and then there was the Princess with him. So at any given time on this three person list, there were only one or two people – never three, despite it being irrefutable that he was a list.
I think a list is an ordered display of individuals / items / events (any noun) which holds a special place in the ulterior motive with which the list was being prepared.
Now, the “number” of items must not matter as only a specific set of items would suit the particular motive. If NO item fits a particular motive, the list would have nothing in it. (Empty list)… just one… then one item in the list… and so forth…