More fun with words, YEAH!!

[jaF0]

Let's do clothes. OK, it's been done 100 times, so what's 101?

I never got the bit about why some are plural and others aren't. Shoes, boots, socks, stockings and gloves are obvious. But why are pants, shorts, boxers, briefs, panties and pantyhose referred to as a pair? Because they have two legs or leg holes? So, what about shirts and coats? They have two sleeves or arm holes, but we don't say a pair of shirts.

You put on a shirt and pair of pants. You don't put on a pair of shirts and pants, maybe unless they match.

You put on a bra and a pair of panties, even though the bra has two cups. You don't put on a pair of bras. Usually.

 

[yowser]

Collective Nouns

 

[PeytonMirabelle]

I think it is because English is such a mongrel language that has absorbed material from so many sources that there's little consistency left, and where every rules has exceptions, and there are exceptions to the exceptions (that stupid "i before e" rule & exceptions still makes me shake my head.)

You wanna talk plurals, the ones for animals. For "goose" the plural is "geese," but for "moose" the plural is "moose?"

Mutt language, all of it.

 

[Candy_Kane54]

I think it is because English is such a mongrel language that has absorbed material from so many sources that there's little consistency left, and where every rules has exceptions, and there are exceptions to the exceptions (that stupid "i before e" rule & exceptions still makes me shake my head.)

You wanna talk plurals, the ones for animals. For "goose" the plural is "geese," but for "moose" the plural is "moose?"

Mutt language, all of it.

goose has Latin roots while moose is derived from Algonquin so two different language families with different rules ...

 

[Lori_the_Hoosier]

.....

 

[Handley_Page]

I seem to remember that 'pants' owes its origin to the fact that at one time coverings for the legs were individual (See the painting of Henry 8th, whose codpiece is very visible), and the word pant is an 'anglisisation' of the foreign word used. .
The single garment resulted later we know as 'trousers' (USA - 'pants').

 

[NotWise]

Let's do clothes. OK, it's been done 100 times, so what's 101?

I never got the bit about why some are plural and others aren't. Shoes, boots, socks, stockings and gloves are obvious. But why are pants, shorts, boxers, briefs, panties and pantyhose referred to as a pair? Because they have two legs or leg holes? So, what about shirts and coats? They have two sleeves or arm holes, but we don't say a pair of shirts.

You put on a shirt and pair of pants. You don't put on a pair of shirts and pants, maybe unless they match.

You put on a bra and a pair of panties, even though the bra has two cups. You don't put on a pair of bras. Usually.

"Pants" is pluralized because they were originally made with the legs as separate parts, so you wore two (a pair) of them. The usage continued after they became one item. Maybe shorts, boxers, and briefs are pluralized because "pants" is pluralized.

Panty is the singular of "panties" and it does get some use. I think "Pantyhose" is singular.

 

[PeytonMirabelle]

goose has Latin roots while moose is derived from Algonquin so two different language families with different rules ...

Exactly! We've sucked in word influences from so many sources with their own rules that it's hard to get any kind of consistency for the English language.

 

[Lori_the_Hoosier]

Exactly! We've sucked in word influences from so many sources with their own rules that it's hard to get any kind of consistency for the English language.

Sheep and deer are both singular and collective and are Germanic-old English in origin, but why they're used that way is beyond me; think, though; 'three sheeps' or 'a herd of deers' sound pretty childish and asisnine, so probably acceptance through common usage over time, but does anyone know why the common usage should have grounded on the same word for the singular or collective? Other words too, like 'advice', 'aircraft', 'cattle', 'Caribou', 'Insignia','Jeans', 'goldfish', 'Police', or 'pliers', the list is probably quite extensive, but they're all words that describe both the singular and the collective and you can't just tack an 'S' on the end to pluralize.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I seem to remember that 'pants' owes its origin to the fact that at one time coverings for the legs were individual (See the painting of Henry 8th, whose codpiece is very visible), and the word pant is an 'anglisisation' of the foreign word used. .
The single garment resulted later we know as 'trousers' (USA - 'pants').

Yep, that's the explanation I've always heard. "Scissors" are pluralised for the same kind of reason: they're a combination of two parts.

For more fun, although the plural of "fish" is usually "fish" again, it's "fishes" if you're talking about multiple kinds of fish: "all the fishes of the sea" etc. etc.

 

[Lori_the_Hoosier]

'Three sheets' doesn't sound bad to me, and it's not that different from 'three sheeps'. Some kind of indoctrination...

'Sheet' isn't a single word for both singular and collective states, and is pluralized with the addition of an 's'; 'Three sheets to the wind', a common euphemism for drunk demonstrates this quite clearly. It's very different to 'three sheeps', which is nonsensical in common usage.

 

[Lori_the_Hoosier]

That's my point

I don't understand your point; earlier in this thread you seemed to be concatenating 'sheep' and 'sheet' together as words that, along with many others in common usage, have no singular and collective differentiation, which is obviously not so, unless I completely miss the thrust of your argument and you were simply comparing them as rhyming assonances, so should logically share similar grammatic properties. Maybe I'm misreading/misunderstanding your point entirely. My head hurts now, kindly elucidate.

 

[Lori_the_Hoosier]

Earlier, it was indicated that 'goose' changes into 'geese', but 'moose' remains 'moose'. When asking for the rationale behind 'sheep' and 'sheet' I thought people themselves would figure out that 'sheep' remains 'sheep', just like 'moose' remains 'moose', while 'sheet' turns into 'sheets'.

The interesting part to me is, that 'sheep' and 'sheet' (singular) are almost similar, but behave so differently when making them plural.

There were no intensions to outsmart people; I guess I could have been more clear when trying to ask my questions.

That's what I guessed you were trying to say, I almost got it before visions of margaritas invaded my head and my brain stopped working. Note to future self: less margarita's, more martinis

 

[yowser]

'Sheep' and 'sheet' both have Old English (West Saxon) etymologies. Ruben noting inconsistent plurals is indeed, and appropriately, puzzling.

jaFO has dug us all a deep pit.

 

[jaF0]

jaFO has dug us all a deep pit.

Of sheep dip?

 

[AvroAnson]

I think "Pantyhose" is singular.

No, "pantyhose" is sadistic.

 

[AvroAnson]

Of sheep dip?

Sheep dip -- cheese dip ...

Olive oil, corn oil -- baby oil, motor oil ...

 

[AvroAnson]

Earlier, it was indicated that 'goose' changes into 'geese' ...

Unless "Goose" is a proper noun, then it is indeed "Gooses". (Three Grumman Gooses bobbed gently in the River Swan.)

 

[Handley_Page]

Sheep dip -- cheese dip ...

Olive oil, corn oil -- baby oil, motor oil ...

There used to be, back in the day, a lubrication oil called Castrol R.
It was very popular with motor cyclists and had a very distinctive smell.
It was also quite useful for frying your breakfast eggs & bacon.
Picture the scene. A misty dawn and the park stirs for the day's events. Camp fires are stoked into life and gas stoves lit.
And the distinctive smell of Castrol R is mixed with that of bacon & eggs, amid the rising chatter and excitement of enthusiasm for today's races.

 

[Lori_the_Hoosier]

There used to be, back in the day, a lubrication oil called Castrol R.
It was very popular with motor cyclists and had a very distinctive smell.
It was also quite useful for frying your breakfast eggs & bacon.
Picture the scene. A misty dawn and the park stirs for the day's events. Camp fires are stoked into life and gas stoves lit.
And the distinctive smell of Castrol R is mixed with that of bacon & eggs, amid the rising chatter and excitement of enthusiasm for today's races.

I would think cooking with mineral oil would be very bad for you indeed; the only outcome I could think of from ingesting a petroleum fraction like Burmah-Castrol R motor oil, a blend of mineral oils and detergents, would be extended bouts of explosive diarrhea...

 

[mynameisben]

I would think cooking with mineral oil would be very bad for you indeed; the only outcome I could think of from ingesting a petroleum fraction like Burmah-Castrol R motor oil, a blend of mineral oils and detergents, would be extended bouts of explosive diarrhea...

What, exactly, do you have against extended bouts of explosive diarrhea?


Ben

 

[Lori_the_Hoosier]

What, exactly, do you have against extended bouts of explosive diarrhea?


Ben

It's fun to watch from a distance, and often instructive ("you've learned an important lesson there, haven't you...?) but I wouldn't like to be trapped in an elevator with a sufferer...

We don't wear HazMat suits for nothing, you know.

 

[Emberto]

There used to be, back in the day, a lubrication oil called Castrol R.
It was very popular with motor cyclists and had a very distinctive smell.
It was also quite useful for frying your breakfast eggs & bacon.
Picture the scene. A misty dawn and the park stirs for the day's events. Camp fires are stoked into life and gas stoves lit.
And the distinctive smell of Castrol R is mixed with that of bacon & eggs, amid the rising chatter and excitement of enthusiasm for today's races.

Over 100 years ago Otto and Diesel's earliest motors ran on vegetable oil. Wakefield's original lubricant Castrol was refined "Caster Oil" pressed from the seeds of the Ricinus Communis.

 

[jaF0]

A throng is a bunch while a thong is very little.

 

[jaF0]

independent

pendant.

Why?