1  2  |   Order by index

Dec 20, 2003, 2:12am

Bowen.. take your damn medication!!!

Please!!

> LEGO's. I would've also accepted legos and LEGOs as the correct term.
> The correct term is LEGO Bricks for the plural form, therefore, using a
> proper contraction as defined in the British dialogue of English, LEGO's
> is as close as possible to the original plural verb. Even LEGO would've
> been more correct.

Dec 20, 2003, 2:15am

I was thinking today that English is missing some pronouns that
various English cultures have filled in with common usage.

In Canada, we say 'youse' as in 'What are youse people doing?'
because there is no plural for 'you' when adressing a group.

In America, people in many states say "y'all" to mean the same
thing.

I wonder if the Brits have a similar term... Strike?

Dec 20, 2003, 5:25am

[View Quote] > You're missing the point by so much, you must be aiming that
> way intentionally :-)
>
> To the people in these newsgroups, Strikes description of a railgun
> was perfectly acceptable.
>
> I don't know and don't really care if the strict technical definition
> of a railgun has something to do with the speed of light or not.
>
> I knew what he meant, and so did probably everyone else on here
> other than you, and that's what counts, and that's what my analogy
> to hamburgers was about. It was only a non-sequitor to someone
> who failed to grasp it's essential connection to the subject.
>
> Unless you were prefacing your comment.. marking it as a non
> sequitor. If that's what you meant.. then....
>
> As far as what goes into the food goes, you don't need to educate
> me about it. My father was a butcher and I used to visit the various
> places he worked as a kid, and I have had the pleasure of touring
> slaughterhouses, meat packing plants, 'rendering' plants and other
> such places.
>
> I just decided when I was that age I would never eat anything without
> cooking the hell out of it.

So if I throw a baseball I'm a particle accelerator? ;)

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com
Give me ideajuice.

Dec 20, 2003, 5:26am

[View Quote] > I was thinking today that English is missing some pronouns that
> various English cultures have filled in with common usage.
>
> In Canada, we say 'youse' as in 'What are youse people doing?'
> because there is no plural for 'you' when adressing a group.
>
> In America, people in many states say "y'all" to mean the same
> thing.
>
> I wonder if the Brits have a similar term... Strike?

You is both the plural and the non plural. Like fish. Although many
people from the southern states will argue "fishes" is correct. That's
not what Dr. Seuss taught us though.

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com
Give me ideajuice.

Dec 20, 2003, 5:33am

[View Quote] [View Quote] Which have an transitive purpose.

>
>
> Nah.

Yeah.

>
>
> "There".

Yup, I realized that after I posted -- I didn't feel like posting a
correction as I thought you could've understood it. Maybe you did,
maybe you didn't.

>
>
> Your use in this case doesn't seem logical.

Tell me how "shan't" seems logical -- if you can explain how it seems
logical to remove the two L's to complete the contraction... by all
means. As far as I know, this is the only craction that does this.

>
>
> That is exactly the kind of thing you're doing. Saying that "LEGO's" is
> instead of "LEGO Bricks" is just as silly as the example you gave.

Then, LEGO Bricks is the correct plural. LEGO is not, nor is LEGOs (or
any derivative thereof).

>
>
> I never said that I was perfect; just that in this case, you are wrong.

Okey Dokey Cap'n fuzzlebum. Oh wait, that's a contraction too.. and
that's completely illogical!!! Oh no. Explain that one too and I'll
give you a cookie. Cap'n Crunch is going to eat your soul.

>
>
> Nope. That would be stupid.

Ok, then so is basing your argument off a picture. Word up home dawg.

>
>
> I don't see how posting one link that clearly show's you're incorrect is
> the same as believing everything I read on the Internet. Your
> entertaining explanation of how it is acceptable to use "LEGO's" is one
> example of why you shouldn't believe everything you read.
>
>
>
> I never claimed that it didn't. I only said that your use of it was
> ludicrous and non-standard at best.
>
>
>
> No it isn't.
>
>
> You're wrong like you always are.
>
>
>
>
> Nope. You never posted anything that backs up your elimination of all
> traces of an entire word. Good luck next time, though!

Contractions assume that the reader has the basic knowledge of the
subject matter at hand.

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com
Give me ideajuice.

Dec 20, 2003, 3:34pm

[View Quote] Since I will never be able to change your mind, this will be my last post on the
subject.

"Shan't" is a contraction of "shall not". The fact that letters are removed
from more than one word is irrelevant because it would sound stupid to say
"shalln't". However, no one ever created a contraction where and entire word was
missing. If we were to follow your logic, I could say that "United's" was a
valid contraction for "United States" which it is most certainly not. Even if it
was, it would still not be a plural form of anything.

--
-Agent1

Dec 20, 2003, 5:28pm

[View Quote] Of course it's not, it's one a singular plural. There are people who do
call it United's. Some Canadians do it up near where my family is located.

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com
Give me ideajuice.

Dec 21, 2003, 10:20am

No.

Accellerating a leather spheroid will not get you off the
hook. You would still be a nitpicker :-)

And if marketing weenies can steal the word 'networking'
from computer jargon and use it to mean having lunch
with other marketing weenies, then why is 'railgun' sacred?

Language is mutable. People are adaptable. The tree that
bends does not break (unless you bend it too far).

[View Quote]

Dec 21, 2003, 10:25am

You're correct in stating the formal 'rules', but I'm pointing
out that people are not happy with the 'rules' to the point
that they have made up words because they are in fact missing.

Why is you both the plural and the non plural? It's confusing
and non-orthogonal.

People have taken it upon themselves to provide an ad-hoc
plural form because they have noticed that sometimes it is
not clear when adressing a group wether they want to adress
the group or an individual within it.

So we say "are you all going to the movies" . The language
is deficient.

[View Quote]

Dec 21, 2003, 4:43pm

[View Quote] Oh it appears that this is not so. Language is static -- language does
not adapt to have slang or jargon.

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com
Give me ideajuice.

Dec 23, 2003, 2:33pm

My fave is "Based on NT Technology"

E



[View Quote]

Dec 23, 2003, 2:48pm

http://home.hccnet.nl/droogkloot.nl/Good/images/neandert.gif

1  2  |   Order by index