| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Eric Harshbarger wrote:
> > > It's not that lego is like sheep where the
> > > plural is also sheep, it's that lego is like sand: it doesn't have a plural.
> Ok... I *have* to jump in at this point. Since when does 'sand' NOT have
> a plural? It has been pluralized throughout the sands of time.
>
> Merriam-Webster, and every other reputable dictionary will back me up on
> this.
Excellent observation! I submit "food" as a likewise flexible singular/plural
form.
Dave!
|
|
| |
> Excellent observation! I submit "food" as a likewise flexible singular/plural
> form.
But "food" and "foods" are not interchangeable. "Foods" means different types of
food. You can say "Some foods give me heartburn" meaning cheese and pastries,
but not "Let me eat those foods" even if there's a whole buffet of different
things on offer. It's always "Let me eat that food".
"Sands" is similar. "The sands of time" is a poetic phrase, and it's not clear
what the "sands" are. Normally "sands" means beaches, deserts etc. but not
individual grains.
This is exactly my point about "legos": it isn't clear what is plural. It could
be pieces, or types of piece, or models, or sets, or piles, or collections, or
themes, or even brands (though TLC wouldn't like that usage!). Personally, I
think there are three legos in the world: duplo, standard lego, and that mini
stuff used by architects.
Barney.
|
|
|
