|
|
Posted by anthonyberet on 03/20/06 19:09
Hammerer wrote:
> "anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
> news:486c5tFidvnsU1@individual.net
>
>>Hammerer wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>>>nope, 1.8 legs is still legs and 1.8 thousands is still thousands :)
>>>>
>>>
>>>And £1.8 in good old sterling is "pounds"? No! It's £1 and 80 shiny, new
>>>pence! Twenty shiny, new pence short of *2* pounds sterling! Really,
>>>anthonyberet . . . . hold together a cogent argument, whu don't you?!
>>>
>>
>>You thought you had gotten away with this didn't you?
>>
>
> Yes. I did! Meh!
>
>>Well lookee here:
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural
>>Extract:"For example, in English, German, Italian, Spanish and
>>Portuguese, the plural form is used for zero or more than one, and the
>>singular for one thing only."
>>Therefore, 1,800 which is clearly not 'one thousand only', must be
>>thousand_s_
>>
>
> But it *is* one thousand only. Singular. One thousand, eight hundred. Two
> hundred less than *two* thousand. One thing only. Clearly.
>
>>Goodness, I am fantastic sometimes. ;)
>>
>
> Heh!
>
>
nope! 1000 is one thousand only. No other number is. Maths is like that.
Anyway, the important thing is that I am right, about whatever it was ;)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|