Posted by Don M. on 03/22/06 16:15

"anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message news:48bhsuFj30nkU1@individual.net...
> Don M. 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?
> >>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_
> >>
> >>Goodness, I am fantastic sometimes. ;)
> >>
> > You can be a fantastic pest sometimes, yes. 1800 is more than 1, surely. "More than
one"
> > is at least two unless you have a word to quantify 1.8. Clearly 1.8 doesn't qualify
for
> > plural; 1.8 of the unit of measure we call 'thousand' is still 1.8 thousand, more
> > correctly 1800 is '1 thousand 8 hundred', not '1 thousand 8 hundreds'. Some people
say
> > 'eighteen hundred', not 'eighteen hundreds'.
> >
> Eighteen whale?
> Eighteen cup of tea?
> Eighteen trouser?
>
> I think not!
>
=========

Plurals per se are not in dispute! Don't try to skirt the issue. Are you drunk or
something?


> > Moreover, that extract you quoted oversimplifies complex linguistic rules and was
probably
> > submitted by a unqualified contributor. Just look at the use of singular and plural
in
> > each of those languages for '4' and '8' in 4800, for example. In plain English even
you
> > should understand: that would be 4 'thousand', not 4 'thousands' and 8 'hundred', not
8
> > 'hundreds'. German follows the same pattern, but not the other 3 languages. In
English
> > you'd use 'thousands' to denote undefined quantity in four figures as in "thousands of
> > bloody pests infest Usenet", and no, nobody would assume it's just 1 thousand and
change..
> >
> Well 1183 (I went back and checked) is four figures innit?
> Clearly 'plural' means 'greater than one'
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=plural
> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=60938&dict=CALD
>
> Ah this one leans a bit your way....but we are talking in and about
> English, no?
> http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/plural
>
> 1183>1000
>
> Put it this way, I have just drunk 1.183 cups of Bovril, not 1.183 cup
> of Bovril.
>

Good for you, but plurals per se are not in dispute! You drank one THOUSAND one HUNDRED
eighty three cups. Yet you did not drink "thousands" of cups. Just because they are
CUPS, it doesn't make them "thousands", understand? You could have drunk 2 or 69 or 999
or 1183 cupS and still not have drunk "thousands" of cups.

> Besides, why do millipedes only have about 200 legs?
> Answer me that!

Just like you, the person who named them thought that 200 qualified as 'thousands' - wrong
but too late since the name was "catchy, had legs and would go places". Or the person
lost his patience counting and estimated there'd be a thousand legs there, not thousands
of legs. Or the darn thing kept moving back and forth so the same legs were counted
several times. Or there was a copyright on the name Centipede already and Millipede was
the next natural step, not Aboutduocentipede. Or 5 of them were in a daisy chain,
probably having kinky casual sex, so the person counted 5 sets of legs; maybe 3 if they
were moving back and forth. Whatever. You still lost, that's what matters.


Don


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

[Back to original message]