Lexigame Community

General Category => Words => Topic started by: Alan W on July 07, 2007, 03:36:26 PM

Title: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Alan W on July 07, 2007, 03:36:26 PM
A while ago, in the "PANTS" topic (https://theforum.lexigame.com/index.php/topic,316.0.html), T proposed that pants and similar words such as knickers and briefs should be allowed in Chihuahua because, although they are plural words, they don't have a singular form.

I said there were quite a few words in the same category, and I would compile a list for discussion. Well, there seem to be hundreds of words ending in S that are currently excluded from Chihuahua but arguably should be allowed. Rather than wait until I've got a complete list of all the candidate words, I thought I'd start with some words for things people wear, since that's where the discussion began. Consider the following words:


Each of these words seems to be a plural without a corresponding singular form in general use. In some cases, the word formed by dropping off the S has an unrelated meaning (boxer / boxers). In other cases, it is related, but not quite the same (nylon is not normally used for a single stocking, but for the material from which nylons are made). Sometimes the word without the S is used in an adjectival way (pajama top / pyjama top).

Often the dictionary will say "usually in plural", and it is true that some of these words are occasionally converted to singular form. Julian Burnside has an interesting section on plural oddities in English in his book Wordwatching : Field Notes from an Amateur Philologist, where he points out that people in the clothing industry occasionally refer to "a trouser". But this could probably be classed as a jargon usage: in standard English, trouser is an adjective, as in trouser cuffs, or (in informal British usage) a verb meaning to take, to pocket.

So, what do we think? Should some or all of these words be playable in Chihuahua? Are there any other clothing/footwear related words that I've overlooked?
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Dave on July 07, 2007, 04:49:09 PM
Alan, there does seem to be a sizeable hole in the logic of accepting many of those words.  If they only occur in that quasi-plural form, then there doesn't seem to be a problem: a goodly number, however, do occur in other senses in the singular, and if you start accepting words on the basis that in some senses they have to take on that final /s/ morpheme you are going to really open the floodgates.

Pants: I pant with anticipation
boxers: I would be a lousy boxer
drawers: definitely from the bottom drawer
cords: a tight cord would shut me up
briefs: brief is what I am not
overalls: overall I think it's a bad idea!

And so on and so on...

I have a nasty suspicion that I have missed some previous, highly definitive argument at some stage in the past about the logic of allowing such words, but I believe there is a major problem if you do.

Cheers,

Dave

Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 07, 2007, 09:35:20 PM
MMMMM!!!!
A can of worms.....
But i still wear; knickers...not knicker.. pants...not pant.....briefs...not brief-well some of them are.....etc etc...

What do you wear Dave??? [you don't have to answer that..]

Goodness ! whoever would have guessed my underwear would be so controversial..a topic of international discussion..???

 :angel:
                     
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Viz on July 07, 2007, 10:10:11 PM
although i originally supported the inclusion of pants, i have been somewhat swayed by dave's argument and now think (well, i think i think it) that pants / boxers etc should not be allowed - just because a word has two meanings does not seem to be sufficient - i mean stern (on a ship) and stern (behaviour) are two words which although they are spelled the same have two separate meanings, but you cant play them twice - so although boxers is a different meaning to boxer, you can have two boxers, (pugilists) and it is spelled the same as boxers (shorts).

In short, (nothing to do with boxers now) i have definitely convinced myself (for the moment) that plural forms of a word which also has a different meaning should NOT be allowed, and the only words ending in "s" which should be allowed are those for which no singular form exixts.  This is my current teory - what do you think alan?
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: biggerbirdbrain on July 07, 2007, 10:19:18 PM
WELL!!! Whatever kind of argument Dave, who is obviously well-versed, has already made for/against the use of plurals, I think that words Alan has deemed acceptable so far

SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AWAY

Let's be consistent. Even if we're wrong!  >:D

Then again ... we hate to be wrong.  :P
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 07, 2007, 10:55:55 PM
Hi Viz  :laugh:
Do you mean 'In short'  or in 'shorts'.... :-\
I think I probably agree too...but what do i know....
I think VIRAL should make the final decision, as i'm sure he will...in all his wiseness...
But i will continue to wear knickers....or maybe i wil decide to go commando....
 :angel:
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Binkie on July 07, 2007, 11:19:40 PM
Commando, T ? Have I missed something? Do commandos (commandoes? help...there's a plural I don't think I've used before) go knickerless for some reason? Answer asap please!
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 07, 2007, 11:40:20 PM
If you watch 'FRIENDS' you will know exactly what i mean...
It is a phrase used for not wearing undies..[is that one okay?] I don't know why...maybe there are so tough they don't pay any attention to chafing.....or is it because they don't have the facilities to wash their 'boxers' or 'pants' or 'shorts' or 'thongs' or 'knickers' or whatever it is macho men wear these days...perhaps they don't have the time, when in a war situation to pull their 'briefs' up and down...
The mind boggles...as does their tackle i expect...
It is actually quite erotic going out, all dressed up, going commando...especially when you drop a hint to your special partner...
Give it a go Kinky Binky...your hubby would love it...
 :angel:
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Binkie on July 08, 2007, 12:02:12 AM
Oh, but you are an evil influence, T!  There was I, pure as the driven whatsit, unsullied as a thingummy, and after a few weeks in your company I'm as profligate, licentious and lewd as a you-know-what. You ain't 'alf improved my vocabulary, though!
(http://www.xrtheme.com/content/emoticons/Avatars/08.gif)
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 08, 2007, 12:16:43 AM
And what 'cheeky' little thing was that supposed to be???
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Binkie on July 08, 2007, 12:25:32 AM
Don't you mean who?   :D
I'm off to bed...nearly 12.30, can't keep my eyes open  :-P and I shall have to stay up REALLY late tomorrow to watch the men's final.
Take care, have fun, talk soon. xxxx
(http://www.radarforum.de/forum/uploads/post-40-1136729949.gif)
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: lucylu on July 08, 2007, 10:19:14 AM
Well I guess I will completely rip the lid off the can of worms and ask:
why cant we use ALL the words ending in "s"?
I get dinged in my score often because we can use some "es" and some "ies" but not all.
 I dont think Ive ever tried a word ending in plain old "s" just because I didnt think it could be used . If we could use all the plural endings I dont think it would cause a player to get a better score than what they are already getting now, but it might clear up any confusion.
just my two cents  :D

Lucylu
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Binkie on July 08, 2007, 10:39:53 AM
I can see your point, Lucylu. It probably wouldn't make a great deal of difference to the number of rare words to be found, but imagine how many hundreds of extra words we'd be typing in every time an "s" appeared in a puzzle!
    I don't know about anyone else, but I quite enjoy the challenge of working out which "s" ending words will be allowable, although I had a few problems early on. Still do, as a matter of fact. In today's Standard, for example, "means" was rejected (as I thought it would be!) even though the word can be used in a singular form....."a means to an end"
I don't think we'll ever come to total agreement on this.....but it makes for some interesting discussion!
Sorry...got to go...BBB is charging up the board again, and I'm slipping back.....
(http://www.hwupgrade.it/forum/images_hwu/smilies/icon_climb2.gif)
Cheers,
Binks
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: a non-amos on July 08, 2007, 02:01:04 PM
My two cents worth:

In the past we have allowed words ending in "s" for which a similar word without the "s" is also valid, provided that the meaning is different.  Example:  "does"

As a plural of female deer, this would not qualify.  As a conjugated form of the verb "do", this would qualify.  The two words are not related, so "does" (the verb) does qualify as a valid word.

"Pants", as an article of clothing, has a meaning that is far different from the act of panting.  The same case can be made for everything on Alan's list.  For consistency's sake, I would vote for the entire list being included as valid words.

T is quite correct that this is a major can of worms.  This would entail a very large number of changes, and would be difficult to administer.  It might be expedient for Alan to allow all "s" words.  I would really prefer not to make this difficult for our pupmaster!  :)
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: mymermaid on July 08, 2007, 02:39:12 PM
I personally don't think I'd like all the "s" words to be added. I guite agree with what Binks said : I quite enjoy the challenge of working out which "s" ending words will be allowable.

Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: a non-amos on July 08, 2007, 03:10:26 PM
I merely wished to point out that allowing all "s" words would simplify Alan's task.  I would still enjoy Chihuahua, no matter what the decision.

Alan's list is only the tip of this iceberg.  He has only included articles of clothing.
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Dave on July 08, 2007, 03:58:34 PM
I'm afraid I have a bit more to say on this one, mainly from the rather selfish perspective that apart from it being quite illogical to extend the list endlessly (and I think that "does" is a very unfortunate precedent in this regard), I hate the idea of having to add a truckload of words that can be created with minimal intellectual endeavour when I'm constrained to dictate the bloody things a single letter at a time using the international radio alphabet.  If you don't think that sounds particularly onerous, I can only suggest that you try it yourself!

(I did say it was a rather selfish perspective  :angel:!)
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Binkie on July 08, 2007, 04:05:08 PM
I rather think that may be the deciding factor, Dave!
All those in favour of leaving things the way they are, say "Aye" !
(http://img84.echo.cx/img84/4866/agreed8mv.gif)
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 08, 2007, 07:45:52 PM
Now! Now! children....

Stop all this bickering [nothing to do with you Binks..] at once..... >:(

There is no way that VIRAL is going to allow all plural words ending in 's'...
It is not going to happen...
Each suggestion should be taken on it's own merit, as it always has done....leaving VIRAL to decide it's ultimate fate..

And i second Binks' motion....
 :angel:

I love a good scrap...it is so good for the blood circulation...
I'm off to sort out my undies...
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: biggerbirdbrain on July 08, 2007, 08:32:56 PM
I, for one more, 3-B the motion -- isn't that what I said yesterday near the BEGINNING of this thread in the first place???
(how quickly they forget ...!)  >:D >:D
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Alan W on July 09, 2007, 05:12:13 PM
I want to respond to some of the comments in this topic, but having written an inordinately long post in another topic today, I'm going to leave this one till tomorrow. Just to let you know it hasn't been forgotten.

... Watch this space ...
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Tania on July 09, 2007, 06:15:34 PM
My vote is to leave things the way they are

(http://img26.exs.cx/img26/2245/thumbsup8de.gif)

Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Alan W on July 10, 2007, 03:10:43 PM
The idea of allowing all plurals has been discussed before - we even had a poll on the question (https://theforum.lexigame.com/index.php/topic,20.0.html), which was in favour of keeping things as they are. Of course, the views expressed then don't have to decide the issue for all time - there have been many new forumites since then and, in any case, we're entitled to change our minds.

However, there does seem to be a lot of merit in the opinion voiced by a few in the earlier discussion, and in this topic, that allowing all plurals would just add a tedious chore whenever there's an S among the letters. On this issue, I think Dave's remark about the onerous task of playing letters via a voice recognition program probably has a wider relevance. Because what is an all-too-obvious burden to Dave may well be a more subliminal annoyance to players using keyboard or mouse. Let's face it, the purpose of any game is to entertain, so anything that imposes boring repetitive tasks is to be avoided where possible.

[A digression: I recently read in a book about game design that philosopher Bernard Suits has offered the definition "playing a game is a voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles." The most efficient way of getting a ball into a hole in the ground is to carry it to just above the hole and drop it in, not to start from a great distance away and whack the ball with a variety of sticks. In the case of Chihuahua, the most efficient way of finding nine-letter words composed of a given set of letters would be to use an anagram dictionary or website, and there are also high productivity ways of finding all the other words. But the whole point of the game is to use your knowledge and mental powers (although there seem to be a few people who haven't grasped that). If it were a different type of game, dexterity in clicking tiles might be part of the challenge, as it is in games with a timer, like Bookworm et al. But Chihuahua is designed to challenge the mental powers only, so the mechanics of entering the words should be as unobtrusive as possible.]


Allowing all plurals would not necessarily result in bigger puzzles. If we kept the existing method of creating puzzles, the number of common words would always fall within a certain range. So a nine-letter word containing an S that would not be used at present because it doesn't make enough words might be allowable once plurals were added in. Meanwhile, other words might be ruled out because they produced too many words when plurals are included. But in any case, the situation would remain that the skill factor in the puzzle would be watered down.

So if we assume for now that most plurals ending in S will continue to be excluded, how should we handle the special cases such as the pants tribe of words?

I always intended that a plural with no singular should be allowed, even where there is another word spelled exactly as the singular would be if it existed. In other words, the existence of the word more does not rule out the word mores. This can apply even where the words are related in derivation and meaning, as with new and news - new is not the singular of news, and news is not the plural of new. Since the forum started, we have added afters to the allowable words, using the same reasoning.

I don't know if there are any such cases among the clothing plurals listed earlier in this topic. Brief is usually an adjective, with no plural, but briefs can be sets of documents prepared for a lawyer. A knicker can be a marble made of baked clay.

So this is where things get interesting - the situation Viz was talking about where two words are written in the same way, as in knickers, underwear and knickers, marbles. In this category too, there have always been some plural words allowed in Chihuahua, in cases where the word that would be disallowed is extremely rare. I mentioned a couple of examples in an earlier discussion:

Quote
For example HOOVES is the plural of HOOF and also of HOOVE (a disease of cattle). Since the second meaning seems very obscure, HOOVES is allowed. In fact even GOES comes into this category, because there is a word GOE - apparently an archaic version of GO - but it would be ludicrous to exclude GOES on that account.

This the reason both STIE and STIES are allowed (an example that comes up in the puzzle quite often), STIES as the plural of STY. I presume STIE is an obscure variant of STYE.

In the process of considering various candidate words over recent weeks, we seemed to move to the position that the disallowed word didn't need to be especially rare - it was sufficient that it be a different word from the one under consideration. Even so, I think most of the words we admitted are more common than their alter egos. Does, as a form of the verb do, is one of the most frequently used words in the language - certainly much more common than does, female deers. Blues, the mood or music form, is more commonly used than blues, shades of blue (or, in Australia, arguments). And I think the same goes for lees, meths, shingles and mons. However, the argument is not applicable to one word that we recently decided to accept (although it hasn't been added to the list yet): hives, in the bee dwelling sense, is probably at least as common a word as hives, the medical condition.

If we used a rarity criterion, I think we would allow knickers, but not pants. But trying to apply some such rule to a long list of words would undoubtedly raise numerous borderline cases.

I think we should keep discussing these issues, but I'll finish up by outlining some of the other groups of words that might have a claim to being allowed. In my investigations to date I've found:

Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Binkie on July 10, 2007, 03:26:17 PM
I have only one question.....do you ever have time to sleep?
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 10, 2007, 05:28:46 PM
Thank you VIRAL....
I've got a headache now and need to go and lie down in a darkened room...
Goodness, you are a clever clogs...
Whatever you have decided[ ...was a there a decision in there?] is fine with me..just so long and you stop talking about my knickers....pants, briefs, thongs, smalls, boxers etc....
I am getting fed up with them being an international subject of controversy...they have been gone through enough...
GET YOUR HANDS OFF MY KNICKERS...
 :angel:
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Alan W on July 10, 2007, 05:52:54 PM
This thing's grown bigger than your knickers now, T!

And have I made a decision? No, except to agree with those who opposed the admission of all plurals. As for the other issues, I'll wait to see what further comments might be made.
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 10, 2007, 07:52:49 PM
VIRAL....
you naughty boy...
I don't know that i want to know about your thing getting bigger when you are discussing my knickers...
Is that allowed over the virtual airways...
 :-[
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: biggerbirdbrain on July 10, 2007, 08:42:42 PM
(http://totalmotorcycle.com/BBS/images/smiles/naughtywag_smilie.gif)
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: anonsi on July 10, 2007, 11:08:38 PM
Alan, as far as brief goes...You mentioned that it is usually an adjective with no plural.  This is true, however it can be used in the sense of a legal brief as well.  In this instance, it does have a plural - legal briefs.

So it appears that there is no clear-cut solution.  As has been noted...once you start down the path of allowing some words, you will have more and more requests for others.  Before you know it, all words ending in s will be allowed.
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Alan W on July 11, 2007, 11:20:06 AM
Quote from: anonsi on July 10, 2007, 11:08:38 PM
Alan, as far as brief goes...You mentioned that it is usually an adjective with no plural.  This is true, however it can be used in the sense of a legal brief as well.  In this instance, it does have a plural - legal briefs.

That was the point I was trying to make, anonsi.
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: anonsi on July 11, 2007, 11:27:46 AM
Oh.  I guess I missed that one.   :angel:
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Alan W on July 11, 2007, 11:30:38 AM
You're forgiven, anonsi. Just try to pay more attention in future!
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: anonsi on July 11, 2007, 11:32:26 AM
Well if you didn't write a novel for every answer...  :angel:
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Alan W on July 11, 2007, 04:31:00 PM
I'd like to put forward another idea for your consideration. (I'll try to be brief, and short, and keep my message small.)

This is perhaps a radical idea, but not a new one, as it's been floated on the Q & A page (http://chi.lexigame.com/answers.html#plurals) since Chihuahua started. This is the idea that no plurals be excluded at all, but you wouldn't be able to play both the singular and the plural. So, you would be able to play either train or trains, but not both of them. It might seem that this would make little real difference, but it would make a big difference in two situations:


I think this rule might also have a psychological effect on players, since we would not be ruling out any plurals, just saying that you can't score twice for two closely-related forms of the same word. And in many cases (the knicker/knickers situation), a player would use the plural word without even realising there was an obscure singular word they were unable to use.

If we went down this path, we probably still should allow both more and mores, and other pairs of words that are completely unrelated, but most of the questionable cases would now be treated as plurals. In fact I would go so far as to say that related pairs like their/theirs and beside/besides should be treated the same way, along with other regular plurals such as match/matches and baby/babies.
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Binkie on July 11, 2007, 04:36:42 PM
Could I have some time to think about this?
(http://4fxearth.net/phpBB2/smilies_mod/upload/d6954bbe44b0aa08f2efed9c7284ce9f.gif)
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Alan W on July 11, 2007, 05:04:01 PM
You can even phone a friend, if you want.

(http://www.2ni2.com/emoticon/amor/al_telefono.gif)
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 11, 2007, 05:26:10 PM
GOOD MORNING VIRAL....
No..is my answer to that one [i think..i am trying to be decisive today..]
Because some rare words are firmly stuck in my nozzle now and i play them like a common word..if you change it then i won't have a clue what the hell i'm doing!!!
If it ain't broke don't fix it....
I would rather you considered each suggestion on it's own merits, as now.
Too radical an idea for me to get my head round..sorry...
Fank u ..
T  :angel:
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Alan W on July 11, 2007, 05:44:29 PM
Quote from: technomc on July 11, 2007, 05:26:10 PM
If it ain't broke don't fix it....

Perhaps that's what I should have said when you first suggested pants!

Seriously, though, I'm not suggesting any rare words would disappear, just that you wouldn't be able to play a word (rare or common) if you've already played its plural.
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Viz on July 11, 2007, 07:31:42 PM
i think the idea has a great deal of merit - mostly one would play the singular, unless the mandatory letter was an s in which case one would play the plural - i think it could work.
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: bobbi on July 11, 2007, 07:40:13 PM
How would this affect plurals where the spelling actually changes e.g. ...y  --> ...ies? And what about those Latinate words without esses e.g. concerto ...ti? medium --> media?

hmm...I think I'm with T on this one. Not liking it too much at first thought. However, I may have a different opinion in the morning  :)
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Alan W on July 12, 2007, 11:26:12 AM
bobbi, I certainly wouldn't change the way plurals not ending in s are handled - you'd still be able to play both medium and media, etc.

I was toying with the idea of extending the new scheme to the -y / -ies case, because it is still a regular plural, but on reflection, that might cause confusion. It might be better to stick to pairs of related words that differ only in a final s.
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Binkie on July 12, 2007, 12:13:36 PM
 Please don't let things get too complicated, Alan. Being a Bear of Very Little Brain, I'm having to concentrate very hard to follow all the arguments thus far, let alone apply them to the puzzles!
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: biggerbirdbrain on July 12, 2007, 12:19:54 PM
I totally agree with Binkie, and with T:

Quote from: technomc on July 11, 2007, 05:26:10 PM
Because some rare words are firmly stuck in my nozzle now and i play them like a common word..if you change it then i won't have a clue what the hell i'm doing!!!
If it ain't broke don't fix it....
I would rather you considered each suggestion on it's own merits, as now.

Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: bobbi on July 12, 2007, 02:35:33 PM
We've just had a tutorial class where one of the activities we had to do was play a ball game and constantly change the rules. I was initially apprehensive, but the outcome was terrific. Much hilarity  :D
This "Exploring Occupation" paper is going to be such fun - we even get to go on camp next week, yay!

So do your thing Alan. Whatever you decide oh wise and omnipotent harem master (how do you feel about this label Viz?), we your humble but intelligent minions will adapt in time.  ;D
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Dave on July 12, 2007, 03:55:55 PM
I think I have to agree with the Three Wise Women of the North  (i.e., relative to me and to Canberra!), as in threeb's post above.  The game already makes my head hurt and gives me far too good an excuse to avoid work, if that's an appropriate label for pretending to be a poet -- I think a case-by-case approach is best, too.

Jeez, that was bloody profound, wasn't it? ;D  must get back to trying to find that last elusive common word -- if you listen carefully every morning at about 01.40 GMT you'll hear a scream of anguish from the far-flung Antipodes when I discover that I've missed the bleeding obvious yet again.

Cheers,

Dave
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: anonsi on July 17, 2007, 12:18:45 PM
Quote
Each of these words seems to be a plural without a corresponding singular form in general use. In some cases, the word formed by dropping off the S has an unrelated meaning (boxer / boxers). In other cases, it is related, but not quite the same (nylon is not normally used for a single stocking, but for the material from which nylons are made). Sometimes the word without the S is used in an adjectival way (pajama top / pyjama top).

If we go this route, then I nominate adding "lets".  As in lets add the word lets to the list.
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Alan W on July 17, 2007, 12:33:10 PM
Let's not do that, please! It should be written with an apostrophe: let's, short for let us. It's true you can find plenty of Web pages saying "lets go", etc, but I would class it as an error, rather than an emerging usage.
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 17, 2007, 05:42:47 PM
Are you getting picky about apostrophes [apostrophi  ]???   Should that not be in a different topic somewhere else... :angel:
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: bobbi on July 17, 2007, 09:14:55 PM
That's a bit rich - accusing  :police: the GAGL of subject jumping?   :o

He's about the only soul left who makes a valiant attempt to stick to the topic.
And I think that let's counts even though it's strictly not a plural.

Sorry Alan, on behalf of the harem, we prostrate ourselves in shame...
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: biggerbirdbrain on July 17, 2007, 09:20:15 PM
kiss-up!  >:D
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: bobbi on July 17, 2007, 09:26:31 PM
hey, you started the whole "we can't stick to the topic because we all have ADD" thing,

...and GAGL you must admit, is possibly the single exception to the trend. Pickin' on the wrong forumite. Not kiss-up, simply statin' fac's. Can't think of any more words with apostrophes, too tired, sorry.
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: biggerbirdbrain on July 17, 2007, 09:33:37 PM
I guess I just can't stand the truth .. sorry, Bobbi - you're right. Got any humble pie -- low fat, of course???
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 17, 2007, 09:39:44 PM
I'll bake you one threeb...
Bobbi, i only picked VIRAL up on it because he picked us up on it...rather sarcastically too i might add....But he does try, you are right there...Bless him....
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: biggerbirdbrain on July 17, 2007, 09:45:14 PM
Yummy!  ;D
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: bobbi on July 17, 2007, 09:48:18 PM
Well he was commenting on a word ending in an es in a topic about plurals, and no need to eat 'umble pie threeb, even the low cal variety is probably carcinogenic or sumpin'

Third time lucky, goodnight all XXX
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: biggerbirdbrain on July 17, 2007, 09:51:41 PM
Sad how everything they make to substitute for the real thing is probably WORSE for you than just eating whatever you want until you're not hungry. I'm all for a piece of Black Forest Cake or Pecan pie from time to time. And if the hips start to go, tell 'em to make the doorway a bit wider! In 1,000 years, nobody will care ... but at least you could die happy!
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 17, 2007, 09:53:19 PM
I MAKE A BLOODY FANTASTIC PECAN AND MAPLE SYRUP PIE......
 :-H  :-H  :-H
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Linda on July 17, 2007, 09:58:10 PM
You're tempting me to use the fatty smiley again ... I must resist, I must resist, must, must, resist, resist ... it's okay I've beaten the craving!  >:D
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: biggerbirdbrain on July 17, 2007, 09:58:51 PM
So I hear ... a girl after my own heart ... keep thinking about how happy and lucky your little daughters are ... that's something they'll always remember ... how their mum cooked from scratch ... the wonderful aromas in the kitchen when she baked them goodies, and taught them how to do it, too.... good girl!
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Linda on July 17, 2007, 10:02:06 PM
Have I stumbled onto The Waltons web site by mistake!!!  >:D
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: biggerbirdbrain on July 17, 2007, 10:02:53 PM
Well, the rest of the time it's usually the Twilight Zone!  >:D
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 17, 2007, 10:04:35 PM
Say what you like..i don't care...
I go to my slimming club and feel positively sylph-like...
I deliberately watch '10 years younger' and 'How to look good naked' because i always feel like a million dollars afterwards...
And i look at some teenage girls and think...'if you look like that now, just wait till you've had kids and aged 30 years' ...
I think i am pretty good for my age...just like you Linda....

And NO it's not the Waltons Cookery Channel..[why did they never have one of those..it would have gone down a storm..]
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Linda on July 17, 2007, 10:07:00 PM
Have you noticed that such a lot of young girls are positive porkers these days?  Thighs like tree trunks and flabby bare bellies spilling over their low rise jeans ... at least I have the sense to keep my flab under cover ... usually!  >:D
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: biggerbirdbrain on July 17, 2007, 10:09:10 PM
It's all that fast food.

A recent study showed that Mexican immigrants who come here all healthy, after a couple of years, start getting like the rest of the natives here because they've changed their lifestyle and diet ...
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 17, 2007, 10:12:37 PM
It looks horrible doesn't it...but they just don't seem to give a F***,
And they have got stretch marks....what's that all about???
Even after the twins i have only got 2 tiny ones, and you can barely see them. [in fact eveery time i go to the beach with my mates and strip off i get a slap from them because of that..]
And they wear tiny short skirts, despite that they are a size 18 - 20, with horrible greycosigotwashedwithsocks thongs on, so when they bend down you can see their
BFA's...
GROSSAMONDO.....big time
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: biggerbirdbrain on July 17, 2007, 10:13:46 PM
so glad I've stayed off the beaches ... ewwwwwwwwwwww!
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Linda on July 17, 2007, 10:13:57 PM
Pecan and maple syrup pies probably don't help!  And why are US food portions so massive?
Would you Adam and Eve it, the Dusbin Lid wants (needs!) to use the computer to chat to his Chinas ... it's time I went up the apples and pears and put on some slap anyway ... l8rs!  >:D
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 17, 2007, 10:15:37 PM
Ta Ra for now then...
later gator...
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: biggerbirdbrain on July 17, 2007, 10:16:00 PM
Hey, I nearly understood all of that, Linda!  :angel:

...... re meals in US -- it's all about "land of plenty," I suppose. A big irony, really! Illusion ...
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 17, 2007, 10:17:07 PM
GREED...
It's a dreadful thing....
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Linda on July 17, 2007, 10:17:27 PM
I aint got no stretch marks eiver ... good innit ... my sis has got lots ... don't know why cos she's got beautiful soft skin ... luck of the draw I guess1  >:D
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: biggerbirdbrain on July 17, 2007, 10:18:46 PM
a lot of it IS in the "genes/jeans", eh?
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Linda on July 17, 2007, 10:22:11 PM
I just bought some v. nice jeans the other day ... slouchy, faded and holey ... let me go now!
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: biggerbirdbrain on July 17, 2007, 10:22:44 PM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v411/hells/more/23_28_101.gif)
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 17, 2007, 10:26:45 PM
Just ignore her threeb and she will go away!!
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: biggerbirdbrain on July 17, 2007, 10:30:31 PM
I suppose you won't be a bit sorry, either!  :'( :'(
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 17, 2007, 10:34:01 PM
Now why would you think that???
Just because she is horrible and spiteful to me, and says mean things all the time, and calls me nasty names, and accuses me of being fat....why would you think i would be glad to see the back of the bitch nice lady...
 :angel:
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: biggerbirdbrain on July 17, 2007, 10:36:08 PM
But you know she really loves you deep down! (doesn't she?)
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Linda on July 17, 2007, 10:44:56 PM
Ha ha ... so that is what you say behind my back you old crones!  Son's girlfriend just arrived so they've gone out and left computer to me ... waiting for moisturiser to sink in before trowelling on the old slap ... and this is what you get up to while I'm gone!  I'm hurt! NOT!!!
As a matter of interest, fatty, what weight does your WeightWatching biddy tell you that a 5'2" woman should be ... please don't make me sob when you give me the answer .... you nasty, nasty person!  >:D
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: biggerbirdbrain on July 17, 2007, 10:47:13 PM
I stood up for you, Linda!

 :angel:
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Linda on July 17, 2007, 10:50:05 PM
Yes you did ... thank you, 3B, YOU are not an old crone ... which is more than can be said for some!!!  >:D
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Linda on July 17, 2007, 10:51:10 PM
... and now she's slunk off in shame ... good riddance .... probably going to stuff her face again!  >:D
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: biggerbirdbrain on July 17, 2007, 10:52:07 PM
CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG????????

I love you guys!  ;D
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Linda on July 17, 2007, 10:53:44 PM
I think you should be elevated to the status of  :angel: threebee, you are such a peacemaker ... unlike et etc  >:D
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 17, 2007, 10:58:12 PM
Me ...  slope off .... shame......
You are thinking of somebody else ....!!!
My slimming club lady says that a woman of 5' 2" should weigh what i weigh not what you weigh..you have got at least a stone to lose....and then some....
And i don't need to talk behind your back...i tell you to your face... if i can get close enough for the slap....and i certainly can't /won't brown nose like you either....
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: biggerbirdbrain on July 17, 2007, 10:59:07 PM
I KNOW this will go on ALL DAY NOW! I give up .......
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Linda on July 17, 2007, 11:01:43 PM
Well, as I don't know what you weigh, I don't know whether you are heavier than me ... dare you to reveal all ... not literally, that would be gross!  >:D
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 17, 2007, 11:02:39 PM
 :laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh:

Are you getting earache threeb...???
It's just jovial banter...don't you worry your head about it...as you say ..we love each other really...[stupid old haggard old cow that she is]
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Linda on July 17, 2007, 11:03:46 PM
FATTY!!!
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 17, 2007, 11:07:13 PM
I weigh 9 stone...my boobs weigh 1 stone...

Actually they don't tell you what you should weigh...you decide when you are happy and stop there...which is brilliant...cos all the stupid charts you see maintain that a woman of our height should weigh something totally ridiculous like 8 1/2 stone. Totally unrealistic once you are past the age of consent...
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: biggerbirdbrain on July 17, 2007, 11:08:37 PM
FIRE!!!!!!!!!!

(http://img333.imageshack.us/img333/9771/badass7gb.gif)(http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/paladin/flamethrower.gif)(http://www.faculty.de/cms/eedit/smilies/162.gif)(http://www.comicguide.net/images/smilies/schleuder.gif)(http://www.comicguide.net/images/smilies/mini_bomb.gif)
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Linda on July 17, 2007, 11:09:50 PM
So is that 10 stone then?!!!  >:D
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: anonsi on July 17, 2007, 11:29:50 PM
What?!  How big is a "stone"? ???
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Linda on July 17, 2007, 11:34:31 PM
14 pounds = 1 stone !!!
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: biggerbirdbrain on July 17, 2007, 11:35:28 PM
bigger than a human brain!
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Linda on July 17, 2007, 11:37:07 PM
What are you clucking on about now, 3B?  I'm losing the will to live here!  >:D
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 17, 2007, 11:42:52 PM
I forget...
They don't do stones in the States, only Pounds....
10 of one thing sounds much nicer than 140 of something else...
There are exceptions of course...diamonds, millions...etc...
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: biggerbirdbrain on July 17, 2007, 11:43:57 PM
The brain ... weighs less than a stone ... simple. I thought. That's what I get.

Well, it's time to fly, as you so politely reminded me earlier. Clean and squeaky ... off for another day in paradise!

Cheers to all ... luv! Don't poke each others' eyes out, PLEASE. God bless.  :angel:
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Linda on July 17, 2007, 11:44:52 PM
I thought you said you were 9 stone .... or was that before adding on the amount for your incredible chest?!  >:D
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: anonsi on July 17, 2007, 11:45:35 PM
At least you didn't translate it into kilos...pounds I can understand!
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: biggerbirdbrain on July 17, 2007, 11:46:04 PM
Not so's anyone going to notice now. But I'm leaving!!!!!!! BYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 17, 2007, 11:47:53 PM
Bye bye threeb... :-*  :-*  :-*
Missing you already....do you really have to go....don't leave us.... :'(
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: biggerbirdbrain on July 17, 2007, 11:48:47 PM
must go now!!! WAHHHHHHHHHHHHH! 
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Linda on July 17, 2007, 11:58:39 PM
Did someone say they were leaving?   >:D
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 17, 2007, 11:59:47 PM
I think threeb mentioned it quietly on her way out...
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: anonsi on July 18, 2007, 12:01:36 AM
Hmm...I must have missed that.
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Linda on July 18, 2007, 12:03:50 AM
Back me up on the make up usage, anonsi ... you look like you would enjoy scouring the make up counters for the perfect shade of lipstick/blusher/eye shadow/eye liner/foundation ... surely?!  >:D
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 18, 2007, 12:11:58 AM
Who's shirley?
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Linda on July 18, 2007, 12:13:44 AM
She's my imaginary friend ... a make-up fairy ... who whisks away all traces of crap (as you so eloquently put it) from your face at the end of the day!
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 18, 2007, 12:17:01 AM
Not my face...
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Linda on July 18, 2007, 12:19:47 AM
Yeah, well she's not your friend, miss squeakycleanshinyforeheadpalelipsstubbyeyelashespissholesinthesnoweyes!
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 18, 2007, 12:23:15 AM
  jealousy jealousy jealousy
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Linda on July 18, 2007, 12:27:41 AM
YEAH, RIGHT!!!
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 18, 2007, 12:30:01 AM
Why are we doing make-up in 2 different threads???
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Linda on July 18, 2007, 12:32:13 AM
Buggered if I know!  >:D
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: anonsi on July 18, 2007, 12:59:54 AM
I wondered where the makeup comment came from.  It was out in left field as far as I was concerned!
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Binkie on July 18, 2007, 09:49:37 AM
A very long time ago......hours, even, there was a comment made about "humble pie".  I did the socially correct thing, and researched the phrase on behalf of my fellow forumites. By the time I returned, I found myself knee-deep in cosmetics. Undeterred, I shall share my findings with you all ;

"In the 14th century, the numbles (or noumbles, nomblys, noubles) was the name given to the heart, liver, entrails etc. of animals, especially of deer - what we now call offal or lights. By the 15th century this had migrated to umbles, although the words co-existed for some time. There are many references to both words in Old English and Middle English texts from 1330 onward. Umbles were used as an ingredient in pies, although the first record of 'umble pie' in print is as late as the 17th century. Samuel Pepys makes many references to such pies in his diary. For example, on 5th July 1662:

    "I having some venison given me a day or two ago, and so I had a shoulder roasted, another baked, and the umbles baked in a pie, and all very well done."

and on 8th July 1663:

    "Mrs Turner came in and did bring us an Umble-pie hot out of her oven, extraordinarily good."

It is possible that it was the pies that caused the move from numbles to umbles. 'A numble pie' could easily have become an umble pie', in the same way that 'a napron' became 'an apron' and 'an ewt' became 'a newt'. This changing of the boundaries between words is called metanalysis and is commonplace in English.

The adjective humble, meaning 'of lowly rank' or 'having a low estimate of oneself' derived separately from umbles, which derives from Latin and Old French words for loins. (Incidentally, if you feel like girding your loins and aren't sure exactly where they are, the OED coyly describes them as 'the parts of the body that should covered with clothing'). The similarity of the sound of the words, and the fact that umble pie was often eaten by those of humble situation could easily have been the reason for 'eat humble pie' to have come to have its current idiomatic meaning."

So now we know!

(http://www.yatoula.com/gif/smiley_2/smiley_834.gif)
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: biggerbirdbrain on July 18, 2007, 11:44:40 AM
I shall never eat humble pie again without thinking of this learned edification, Binks.  8)
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Binkie on July 18, 2007, 11:59:42 AM
 Always 'appy to 'elp, Threeb !
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: biggerbirdbrain on July 18, 2007, 12:04:58 PM
It's good to see some of your are still here. Been a rough day, but hope tomorrow will be better.

Boy, did I miss a run of posts today! All I've done is spend the past 20 minutes sorting thru them, and they're all fun, as always, and a real uplift! Good that you're still all here, crazy as ever!

(and no, you don't look a BIT like that hag you posted as a self-portrait! My word -- with that cute sweet face! I don't believe it!)
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 18, 2007, 05:35:12 PM
What a fount of knowledge you are Binks...[even if you had to look it up]...the next time i hear that phrase i will astound everyone with the facts...and look like a real smartypants...
Thanks for taking the time to look...
 :angel:
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Alan W on July 20, 2007, 07:00:34 PM
To sum up this discussion about plurals, I get the feeling that the weight of opinion is against any drastic changes. That would seem to include major changes of policy - such as allowing all plurals - and any mass admission of new words by the hundred under an interpretation of established policy.

(I still think there's merit in the suggestion I made of barring closely related words, without specifically excluding any plurals. I may, at some stage, set up a prototype to see how that works in practice.)

A number of people said we should continue to look at each case on its merits, but that doesn't actually eliminate the need for some criteria to apply in making those assessments.

The most contentious cases seem to be where two words are written the same way, such as pants, that you wear, versus pants, meaning what a dog does. I can't accept that in every such case, the word should be excluded. It would lead to some ridiculous results where one word is much more obscure than the other. I've given some examples in a previous post. Here's another one: anus could mean something inside your pants, but it also could mean edible tubers from a twining herb, Tropaeolum tuberosum, of the nasturtium family, found in the Andes. I don't think this plural meaning justifies dropping the word from our list.

But perhaps we have been drifting towards an excessively lax approach. Let's remember what this is all about - trying to please the player of the puzzle. On the surface, it might seem that excluding too many words is just as bad as allowing too many words - either way, someone will get annoyed. But, in practice, admitting more words doesn't actually make it easier for players to reach a given target level, because the targets get higher as more words are allowed.

If you're one word short of a rosette, and you think of pants and try it, unsuccessfully, you may think, "If only pants were allowed, I'd have a rosette now." Wrong! If pants were allowed, you would have been two words short of a rosette, and after playing pants, you'd still have one more word to find. On the other hand, if a player avoided trying pants because they thought of it as a plural, and then the next day they saw that it was allowed, and was the one word they needed for the rosette, they would have a genuine complaint - if pants had not been allowed, they would have got the rosette.

So, I think there are rational reasons for being reluctant to admit new words where the arguments seem borderline, especially where the proposed word would be classed as common.

I don't think any of the above reasoning need cause us to want to remove any of the "plural" words we have recently added. However, it does suggest to me a rethink of some of the words that have been accepted in forum discussions, but haven't yet actually gone into the list. They are:


What do we all think now about these? I'm still pretty sure that mons should be allowed, because the plural words spelled like that are very obscure - even more rarely-used than the anatomical meaning. But I'm not so sure about the other three.
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Linda on July 20, 2007, 07:02:51 PM
Alan ... I agree with 3 of them but can't understand why 'divers' would be included .... do tell!  >:D
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Alan W on July 20, 2007, 07:08:25 PM
Linda, you must have let your attention wander when this was discussed. See this topic (https://theforum.lexigame.com/index.php/topic,351.0.html).
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Linda on July 20, 2007, 07:15:57 PM
Sorry sir ... short attention span ... have looked at the topic but still not convinced ... but if you think it's okley dokely then who am I to doubt your infinite wisdom!  >:D
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Alan W on July 20, 2007, 07:25:11 PM
Well, in fact what I'm saying now is that I'm not convinced hives, divers or pants should be allowed.
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Linda on July 20, 2007, 07:30:18 PM
Well, make your mind up ... could confuse a stupid person!  >:D
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: dino on July 21, 2007, 02:48:40 PM
 ??? what about axes as the plural of axis?
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Alan W on July 21, 2007, 03:57:13 PM
Quote from: dino on July 21, 2007, 02:48:40 PM
??? what about axes as the plural of axis?

Good example, Dino. That is, "good" in the sense of bringing out some of the most perplexing issues. An American player might also say, "What about axes as the plural of ax?"

I'm inclined to think, in light of the previous discussion in this thread, that the word should continue to be excluded, but I'd be interested to see what others think.
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Dave on July 21, 2007, 05:13:49 PM
I am with you on this one, Alan.  I tried "axes" myself and then cursed because I hadn't thought of the more everyday plural, and "mons" has only ever had the anatomical meaning  in my vocabulary, quite possibly because I have a dirty mind.  I think you are moving in the right direction-- with some relief, because I really didn't want to see a truckload of additional words :).

Cheers,

Dave
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Binkie on July 21, 2007, 05:47:09 PM
What a deep, psychic bond we must have, Dave! I did precisely the same, feeling smug until I realised that "axes" had more than one meaning. I do agree with you - I don't think I want to cope with hundreds of plurals ending in "s". Apart from anything else, it's just too easy!
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 21, 2007, 07:29:36 PM
Hi everyone..
I don't know about the rest of you forumates....but it takes me every spare minute of the day to get the words i do get, i haven't got the time for anymore 'S' words en masse.....
As i post..i am walking up and down my lounge holding up a banner and wearing an appropriate 'T' shirt, donning the legend;
 

                                                  JUST SAY NO!

                                                   TO PLURALS


...and chanting...NO MORE 'S' WORDS...NO MORE 'S' WORDS.....
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Binkie on July 21, 2007, 09:27:05 PM
Oh hit! Are we till dicuing the poibilitie of uing plural? I'm abolutely ick of eeing o many pot about the ubject. Jut ban all " " word, and ee what happen. Imple!
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: biggerbirdbrain on July 21, 2007, 09:32:55 PM
Maybe we *hould ju*t eliminate all word* with any e**e* at all! Wouldn't that *olve the problem altogether?
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: Binkie on July 21, 2007, 09:46:57 PM
Ye, Threeb, I can ee that you have graped the point traight away. Urely it would be eaier if we jut dimied (ooh....good one there....work it out!)all the "..." in a clean weep.
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: biggerbirdbrain on July 21, 2007, 09:54:06 PM
I'm all for making life a* *imple (I like THAT one, too) a* po**ible!  ;D
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 21, 2007, 10:13:54 PM
Hand on a oent, ane'nt we getting rid of all the '*'  a well.

 o with no '*' and no '*' ..it i goin to be onuentally, nay, practically ipoible to write anything that anybody will undertand.
Are we ure thi i a wie deciion? oe ay find it too hard. I know i have to keep cheking yelf to ake ure i have written oething enible.
What nonene we drivvle on about....
But it doe ake e laugh alot....
One poitive thing though....NO ORE ILIE.......Linda will be pleaed...
 :angel:
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: biggerbirdbrain on July 21, 2007, 10:19:03 PM
Oh, yeah!?! Only the word itelf will diappear!

(http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/3316/tfr612ix4.gif)
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 21, 2007, 10:22:21 PM
................!!!!
I hadn't thought of that...
   illy e!
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: biggerbirdbrain on July 21, 2007, 10:26:33 PM
There' o uch to think about, T! Don't try to carry the world on your houlder !
Title: Re: "Clothes" vs "clothe" and related Plural Issues
Post by: technomc on July 22, 2007, 03:08:21 AM
 y over houlder bolder holder....haha!